To continue from here (now that that thread has hit the magical 100 post length...)
Forget the two-state solution, Part 3.
Sat, 2009-01-31 12:38
#1
Sven
Forget the two-state solution, Part 3.
Sat, 2009-01-31 12:39
#2
Sven
In the real world simple analogies don't work.
That is usually true and it is certainly true in this specific instance.
You live on stolen land. What steps have you taken to return it to or compensate its owners?
The difficulty presented by colonization is that the current holders of the land may not have stolen it but acquired it quite innocently. Nevertheless, it was still stolen and the former owners, through negotiation, are certainly entitled to be compensated if not able to return to the former family home.
Okay, so if actual return to the land previously colonized is not necessarily feasible, then cash compensation is the alternative.
A few thoughts:
1. The likelihood is that the vast majority of the adults who were part of the original taking of the Palestinian land over sixty years ago are now dead. So, nearly all of the land is now owned by others—others who, as you describe it, acquired it "quite innocently". Therefore, nearly all of the remedy is cash compensation rather than actual return of land (as most of the original thieves—and mosty of the original victims—are now long dead).
2. So, if Palestinians are not actually returned to the land that was originally stolen back in the 1940s but are instead provided with cash compensation for their loss, then why is a one-state solution logically necessary? The Palestinians now occupy Land X and the Israelis now occupy Land Y. If the vast majority of the land in Land Y is not returned to individual Palestinians, but instead they are given cash compensation, then why should the Palestinians and Israelis then be forced to live under the same policitcal umbrella of a single state? Or, to put it another way, if the process is largely one of negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians, then why couldn't a two-state resolution just as easily be part of the negotiations, along with the amount of cash compensation?
3. Within about twenty years (thirty for sure), there will be zero original thieves still alive. So, to the extent a solution is not arrived at now, then cash compensation would represent the entire solution in the near future and it would seem that there would be little, if any, logical foundation left to continue to argue for a one-state solution.
4. With the passage of very long periods of time, the compensation issue becomes massively complex (and the matter becomes one that is solely one of compensation—not return of land— because all of the original takers of the land will have long ago died and all remaining settlers will have acquired, and now possess, the land "quite innocently". The Palestinian-Israeli issue is hugely complex as it is and the taking of that land occurred relatively recently. What, for example, is a person who is half Israeli and half Palestinian entitled to? Going back several hundred of years, as is the case in North America, the complexity of the problem is exacerbated exponentially. To look at your specific question: "You live on stolen land. What steps have you taken to return it to or compensate its owners?" Here are examples of the complexity: I have two nieces who are half "white" and half "Chinese". What compensation do they owe? I have another niece who is a mixture of "white", "African ancestory", and "Native American ancestory". What compensation does she owe and what compensation is she owed? Tens of millions of people immigrated to North America long after the land was taken from the original occupants. What does, for example, a Mexican immigrant who has lived here for fifty years owe in compensation...and to whom?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sat, 2009-01-31 21:47
#3
Frustrated Mess – “It seems easier to whom? After sixty years without any progress, the Gaza Strip reduced to a concentration camp under siege and the West Bank broken, divided, and occupied by settlers, where is the ease? How does a viable Palestinian state arise out of that?”
Frustrated Mess - “There is no state or unitary power, within a corridor or otherwise, that will act to resolve the Palestinian problem. Every government on earth supports the so-called two state solution, so where is it? Within every corridor of power on the planet there is support for the two state solution so why is there not two states? Because it is all bullshit. It is a soother for dreamers while Israel completes the digestion of the land and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.”
I thought I would interject this argument of Jordan playing a larger role again and the concept of a Jordanian/Palestinian federation. The chaos in the West Bank and Gaza has clarified that Fatah and Hamas cannot unify the Palestinians alone. The election of Hamas does not indicate any wide acceptance by Palestinians of Hamas’ objectives or desire to establish an Islamic state. It’s doubtful that Hamas could ever accept a secular government and independent Palestinian state free to choose. Both Hamas and Fatah have used the same oppressive and corrupt means of control and both have failed regardless of outside interference and support. I don’t see any possibility of a single state solution at this point in history and there does appear to be another option out there. That option is a separate Palestinian state with closer ties to Jordan which also may help with the issue of right of return. I didn’t see the Jordan issue discussed but maybe I have missed it or it might be in other threads on the issue. The Jordan connection also seems to come out of Jordan’s interests as well as Israel’s. The peace process between Jordan and Israel is holding enough to create a mutual interest in the West Bank both economically and in terms of security. It is also more likely that a renewed interest from Jordan in helping stabilize the West Bank will be greeted more openly by Israelis and Palestinians alike as opposed to the other option of dealing with Hamas. It may also allow for negotiated disengagement to take place leading to a negotiated settlement of an independent Palestinian state in the future. I seriously doubt that if Jordan expresses this willingness over the next few years, along with possible encouragement and engagement of a new U.S. Administration, that Palestinians would choose a single state within Israel where they will still be locked in a struggle for equal recognition for decades to come. Israel may also be glad to pass the headache onto the Jordanians where they show more promise of success with it. They will also maintain mutual economic benefit from the West Bank and its resources without having to settle it illegally and maintaining the violence and chaos that reigns there now. It is a possible solution. I’ve posted two conclusions and links on the issue by Professor Asher Susser and an article by Dan Diker and Pinchas Inbari. One is from 2004 and the other is from 2006.
PASSIA
The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem
http://tinyurl.com/bunz3f Professor Asher Susser, Consequences of Disengagement by Israel
“What are the consequences of Israel’s disengagement against this background? The integration of the West Bank into Israel from 1967 onwards weakened the link between the West Bank and Jordan systematically, and incorporated the West Bank into the Israeli orbit of influence. Israel’s disengagement would most probably have the opposite effect. The West Bank is landlocked territory between Israel and Jordan. If it not absorbed into the Israeli orbit of influence, and that is what the disengagement suggests, it would probably lead to some kind of closer association between the West Bank and Jordan. Considering the historical narratives of Israelis and Palestinians, the failure of the peace process, and the last few years of ferocious struggle, I find an Israeli-Palestinian confederation hardly a likely proposition, at least not in the foreseeable future. I find it far more realistic to envision a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation. The two peoples have a much greater overlap of identities and historical, cultural and religious ties."
This is the second article.
Re-energizing a West Bank-Jordan Allianceby Dan Diker and Pinchas Inbari Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2006, http://tinyurl.com/al4lvd
“While international events have had a negative impact on Jordanian security, they have also increased the political importance of the kingdom. Saddam Hussein is gone, and Iraqi influence hobbled by its own troubles. International criticism of the Syrian regime in the wake of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri's assassination has undercut Syrian influence. Saudi preoccupation with Al-Qaeda and post-succession internecine struggles within the royal family have also reduced Riyadh's willingness to take a political lead. The Palestinian Authority, too, may be accepting of a Jordanian role. Abbas keeps close ties to King Abdullah and maintains a residence in Amman. Jordan has much more opportunity to play the leading Arab role in the West Bank than at any point since its disengagement in 1988 and, perhaps, even since Abdullah I was in his prime in the 1930s.Reconsideration of some form of a federal relationship between Jordan and the West Bank may appear to go back to the future. The motivations for such a move, though, are far different than before the Oslo process. Now, the Jordanian-West Bank federation may be the Palestinians' only hope to defeat radical Islamism and build both a viable and democratic state.U.S. policymakers should not be bound by a roadmap that may exist in diplomatic parlors but has no basis in the Israeli, Jordanian, or Palestinian reality. The Oslo process failed to create a viable and democratic Palestinian state. The end of the Arafat and Sharon era as well as the degeneration of Gaza into anarchy has made the roadmap moot. While the push for reconsideration of a Jordan-West Bank federation has come from Jordanians and Palestinians, Washington could play a valuable role in supporting and directing the process. Such a federation may not only be key to the security of both Jordan and Israel in the face of well-organized and well-financed jihadism, but it may also be the Palestinians' last best chance to have a viable state.”
Sun, 2009-02-01 01:37
#4
Sven
I find an Israeli-Palestinian confederation hardly a likely proposition
It does seem highly improbable.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Mon, 2009-02-02 18:12
#5
Mon, 2009-02-02 18:34
#6
You really can't argue with that. A two state solution might have been a good idea if Israel wasn't pathologically expansionist. It just doesn't look viable anymore.
Tue, 2009-02-03 01:05
#7
M. Spector
[url=http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/cbs-on-israel-palestine.html][col... surprisingly sympathetic report on the Palestinians in the West Bank from CBS's "60 Minutes" that demolishes the "two-state" solution.[/u][/color][/url]
Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi:
"While my heart still wants to believe that the two-state solution is possible, my brain keeps telling me the opposite because of ...the building of settlements...."[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml][u... of the video[/u][/url]
[b]This 60 Minutes segment has aroused the ire of the Israel lobby, and they are now flooding CBS with complaints.[/b]
[url=http://www.canadiandimension.com/blog/2009/01/cbs-under-attack-for-expos... campaign is now underway to thank CBS for having the guts to tell the truth about the occupation.[/u][/color][/url]
Tue, 2009-02-03 02:12
#8
And if the “single state solution” goes wrong and the Jews face horrific persecution?
Tue, 2009-02-03 02:23
#9
Brainwashing the younger generation of Palestinians with concepts of terrorism and hatred has great importance for Hamas. As part of its indoctrination effort, Hamas makes extensive use of the Internet, with approximately 20 Internet sites in seven languages. One sites is an children's magazine called Al-Fateh ("The Conqueror"), www.al-fateh.net.The magazine has attractive graphics and contains comic-like drawings and photographs to make it "friendly" and attractive to its target audience of young children. There are poems, articles about religious subjects, and tales of heroism from Arabic and Islamic history.
[b]Side by side with these "innocent" items are articles preaching the perpetration of terrorist attacks, extolling the suicide bombers and presenting them as role models, and encouraging hatred for Israel and the Jewish people. [/b]
You expect the Israelis to live with people that have a Nazi like level of anti-Semitism?
Tue, 2009-02-03 02:36
#10
saga
And if the “single state solution” goes wrong and the Jews face horrific persecution?
There is horrific persecution in Gaza now, so that isn't sustainable.
I guess 'what if' is the question for negotiation.
Sat, 2009-02-07 17:12
#11
And if the “single state solution” goes wrong and the Jews face horrific persecution?
It's funny how some Israeli Jews fear that in case a single state is established, Arabs may treat them as bad as they have treated Arabs. I doubt that will happen. Unlike Europeans, Arab majorities have a history of tolerance towards Jews. Without the irritant of Zionism, there would be no reason for Arab animosity toward Jews in the Middle East.
Anyway, a Palestinian state won't be established until Israel recognises the existence, or even the possibility, of a Palestinian state. The Likud, which seems to bee the likely next Zionist government, isn't willing to do so.
A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.
Sat, 2009-02-07 18:59
#12
Frustrated Mess
You expect the Israelis to live with people that have a Nazi like level of anti-Semitism?
Israeli's are actively engaged in a Nazi like level of persecution against Palestinians due to their irrational, state-sponsored racism. Those Israelis who engaged in atrocities against Palestinian civilians should be assured they will be humanely cared for while in the custody of the International Criminal Court awaiting judegment for their crimes.
Sat, 2009-02-07 19:03
#13
Frustrated Mess
mimeguy: Looking at the map provided by al-Qa'bong, what is it Jordan, another US backed police state without popular support and ruled by a minority, will administer?
The so-called plan to make Egypt and Jordan responsible for Palestinians is just more of the same plan to legetimize ethnic cleansing and dispossession, euphemistically called "transfer" by the racist Israeli state.
Sun, 2009-02-08 15:17
#14
Frustrated Mess: In the articles provided the impression I have is a plan that would involve a Palestinian state that would perhaps come into an equally negotiated federation with Jordan. Not a surrender of authority and be 'administered' by Jordan. Israeli expansion is not in question however I would argue that in a negotiated settlement which establishes a Palestinian state that there would be a surrender of land and disengagement by Israel that would fundamentally alter the map you refer to. As to mine or your opinion on the nature of Jordan this is not relevant to the discussion. There is peace between Jordan and Israel and they have chosen closer ties and economic integration. Resources, especially water which lies as a key motivation behind the occupation and war, plays an major role in the relationship. The issue is one of greater trust and stability. So whether you or I approve of the state of Jordan it is up to the Palestinians in the West Bank to determine their future. Palestinians cannot have a viable, independent state in the West Bank without peaceful economic and environmental resource sharing between all three states. An autonomous Palestinian state does not have to become a police state in order to have peaceful integration with Jordan. Integration with Jordan does not involve any form of ethnic cleansing as Jordan is home to many Palestinians. From my understanding Jordanian nationalism evolved from polictical necessity not ethnic distinction which motivated disengagement from the West Bank in 1988. Do you have proof of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian culture in Jordan?
Sun, 2009-02-08 15:54
#15
al-Qa'bong - "Unlike Europeans, Arab majorities have a history of tolerance towards Jews. Without the irritant of Zionism, there would be no reason for Arab animosity toward Jews in the Middle East."
Absolute nonsense both historically and in the context of modern Arab states.
Sun, 2009-02-08 16:13
#16
Frustrated Mess
Frustrated Mess: In the articles provided the impression I have is a plan that would involve a Palestinian state that would perhaps come into an equally negotiated federation with Jordan.
Yes, it is an Israeli plan and not a Palestinian nor even a Jordanian plan and it is an Israeli plan to complete the consolidation of the annexation of the West Bank.
Israeli expansion is not in question however I would argue that in a negotiated settlement which establishes a Palestinian state that there would be a surrender of land and disengagement by Israel that would fundamentally alter the map you refer to.
That is nonsense. In every so-called negotiated agreement to-date, there has been a requirement for Israel to halt or freeze settlement building and in every case settlement building has increased. In fact, a recent report demonstrates that Israel has been dishonest about illegally seizing Palestinian land for settlement building. There exists within Israel a policy to expand settllements no matter what nonsense Israelis speak publicly. The evidence speaks quite clearly the truth.
As to mine or your opinion on the nature of Jordan this is not relevant to the discussion. There is peace between Jordan and Israel and they have chosen closer ties and economic integration.
I disagree. The only reason there is peace between Israel and Jordan is because the minority, undemocractic government is acting in compliance with US economic and military support. There is no popular support in Jordan for the actions of the government.
Resources, especially water which lies as a key motivation behind the occupation and war, plays an major role in the relationship.
Yes, because Israel is stealing Palestinian water and wishes to continue doing so.
The issue is one of greater trust and stability.
Nonsense. It is one of occupation, dispossession, theft, and resistance. And that is true no matter the spin to try and make Israel appear a rational and honest player.
So whether you or I approve of the state of Jordan it is up to the Palestinians in the West Bank to determine their future. Palestinians cannot have a viable, independent state in the West Bank without peaceful economic and environmental resource sharing between all three states.
Nonsense, again. The Palestinians have a state. Israel occupies it. What they need is for Israel to end its racist apartheid policies and extend to Palestinians political and economic rights and return to them, with compensation, that which was stolen.
An autonomous Palestinian state does not have to become a police state in order to have peaceful integration with Jordan.
Jordan is a police state.
. Do you have proof of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian culture in Jordan?
No. And I never claimed there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Jordan. There is however ample evidence of Israeli ethnic cleansing and Jordan is but one location where Israel would prefer its indingenous population be "transferred" to.
Sun, 2009-02-08 16:30
#17
Merely asserting something doesn't make you right. If you knew pre-Zionist Arab history you wouldn't have made such an assertion.al-Qa'bong - "Unlike Europeans, Arab majorities have a history of tolerance towards Jews. Without the irritant of Zionism, there would be no reason for Arab animosity toward Jews in the Middle East."
Absolute nonsense both historically and in the context of modern Arab states.
Futhermore, you cannot say something about "the context of modern Arab states" without factoring in what I called the "irritant of Zionism." You have no basis to claim that Arabs in these states aren't tolerant of Jewish minorities since these modern Arab states are about the same age as the Zionist colonial project in Palestine.
Mon, 2009-02-09 01:50
#18
A two-solution state will rise before a two-state solution if the ethnocentrics gain power- an example of in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. It's up-to-date and all too "human-like".
Stan
"Call me Hyphen".
Mon, 2009-02-09 12:13
#19
Cueball
Merely asserting something doesn't make you right. If you knew pre-Zionist Arab history you wouldn't have made such an assertion.al-Qa'bong - "Unlike Europeans, Arab majorities have a history of tolerance towards Jews. Without the irritant of Zionism, there would be no reason for Arab animosity toward Jews in the Middle East."
Absolute nonsense both historically and in the context of modern Arab states.
Futhermore, you cannot say something about "the context of modern Arab states" without factoring in what I called the "irritant of Zionism." You have no basis to claim that Arabs in these states aren't tolerant of Jewish minorities since these modern Arab states are about the same age as the Zionist colonial project in Palestine.
We can be more precise than that, Arab intollerance towards Jews was greatly increased by the appearance of Israel, without any Arab input, and the subsequent actitions of the Israeli state. State sponsored expulsions of Jews by some Arab states, the main evidence upon which the case for Arab anti-Jewish sentiment rests, were in every single case, tit for tat expulsions of Arabs from Palestine, and promoted as such by the leaders of those countries. I can not find in the record a single mass expulsion, or transfer, of an Jewish population in the Arab world until such a time as the Zionist began claiming they were the representatives of the Jewish people, and then started the ethnic cleansing project against non-Jewish Arab people.
The same can be said of Europeans where expulsions and pogroms against Jews have been events experienced by almost every single generation of European Jews through out the middle ages until now. Perhaps the reasons that so many people of European heritage are so easily convinced of the "natural prejudice" of Arabs toward Jews is because such extreme prejudice is a given fact of European attitudes towards Jews.
Lets be clear about that, prior to the advent of Israel the Sephardic Jews were Arabs. The 1964 constitution of the PLO makes the Arab point of view on this clear, wherein it says that Judaism is a religion, and religions do not constitute a nationality, as such. Further going on to explicitly outline that persons of the Jewish faith who were among the original people of the land, and not European settlers brought in through the machinations of the European powers, would have the full entitlements under the secular unitary state the charter proposed.
Mon, 2009-02-09 22:29
#20
We can be more precise than that, Arab intollerance towards Jews was greatly increased by the appearance of Israel, without any Arab input, and the subsequent actitions of the Israeli state.
Well, some Arabs (in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc.) did have their "say" about the appearance of Israel, the problem is that the Palestinians did not. The Palestinians were not asked their opinion in the late 40s, and the same holds true to this day.
Tue, 2009-02-10 07:29
#21
Palestine didn't exist as a State in the late 1940s. It could have. If I remember correctly all of the Arab states voted against the partition plan in the United Nations.
The only way forward is meaningful negotiations.
Tue, 2009-02-10 08:08
#22
Palestine didn't exist as a State in the late 1940s. It could have. If I remember correctly all of the Arab states voted against the partition plan in the United Nations.
Palestine certainly existed, but as a colony of the Ottomans (from the 16th century) and then the British after Versailles. Yes, as skarredmunkey said, no one asked the Palestinians their opinion before their homeland was partitioned by foreigners:
Tue, 2009-02-10 08:24
#23
I agree with you Unionist. I used the term State to underscore why they had no voice at the UN.
Tue, 2009-02-10 11:23
#24
Cueball
Not to mention that the majority of the Palestinina leadership were cooling their heals in British prisons.
Fri, 2009-09-25 08:58
#25
Correct. I'm reading an interesting collection of essays that came out in 2001 entitled if I remember correctly The War in Palestine looking at various aspects of the 1947-9 period. The book's home so I can add the editors names tomorrow. I'm learning a lot about the historiographical debates.
ETA: This is the book-
The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge Middle East Studies) (Paperback)
by Eugene L. Rogan (Editor), Avi Shlaim (Editor) "
Mon, 2009-09-28 23:41
#26
No clue what thread to post this in:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8279762.stm][color=red]Hamas, Fatah "near agreement"[/color][/url]
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal says all Palestinian factions are drawing close to agreement on Egypt's proposals for Palestinian reconciliation.
Mr Meshaal has met the head of Egyptian intelligence, Omar Suleiman, to give his answer to the proposals.
He said Hamas have given some thoughts on how the draft might be adjusted - but in principle will return by the end of October to sign a final draft. [...]
Fatah, headed by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, have already agreed to the Egyptian proposal.
Wed, 2009-09-30 08:34
#27
Diogenes
Like the previous poster, I'm not sure where to post this ...
Government threatened grant agency over Mideast conference
The Science Minister's chief of staff warned the arm's-length agency that finances social-science research in Canada that it could lose any chance of an increase in the next federal budget over a controversial conference on Israel and Palestine, according to an internal e-mail.
Sun, 2010-06-27 11:41
#28
Kislev25
The borders and even the existence of many countries arount the world could be easily challenged as illegitimate. Are Alsace and Lorraine French? Is Transilvania Romanian, Danzig/Gdansk Polish? One can even go further and debate the legitimacy of U.S. and Canada, after all, these two nations are nations of "sellters"! Ignoring reality will not solve the Palestinian problem: Israel exists, and it's there to stay. Israel will never allow anybody who left in 1948 or their descendants, to return. Just as much as India will not grant any rights to current Pakistanis who left at the time of partition of the British Raj, same thing applying in reverse to Pakistan. There are times in life, when regardless of being right or wrong, one looses. Accepting defeat, sometimes allows one to move on with whatever's left and off to a fresh start. The Palestinians are not ready to accept they have lost the war, although they're still fighting a battle. Their misery is compounded by the fact that all the other Arab nations, have ignored their brethren and allowed them to be miserable and stateless, hoping that it would lead to a population of people who will continue to fight to put an end to their arch-enemy, Israel. A palestinian state will never exist as long as the Palestinians themseles are not ready to accept the existence of Israel. Their misery will continue and even get worse, unfortunately.
Sun, 2010-06-27 11:49
#29
I could have sworn Bibi cut his visit short because of the flotilla thing...
Mon, 2010-06-28 00:33
#30
Israel exists, and it's there to stay.
Yeah, that's what Baldwin I said too.
Mon, 2010-06-28 00:37
#31
UNRWA Director: Innocent Children Pay Toll of Gaza Siege
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=294979
"It is 'shameful' that the international community allowed the Gaza siege to enter its fourth year as '750,000 innocent children are paying the toll,' UNRWA director of Gaza operations John Ging said Sunday. 'The political focus should be translated into action rather than discussing improvements or easing the siege. This siege must end completely and immediately.'"
'Jerusalem was Promised by God to the Jews': Israeli Official
http://www.imemc.org/article/59012
"Israel's representative at the meeting also re-stated the Israeli position that the land was given to the Jews by God, and therefore there could be no compromise.."
Palestine Centre for Human Rights 2009 Annual Report
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/06/palestinian-centre-for-human-right...
"...the international community doesn't enforce their international law obligation to stop human rights violations and hold those responsible accountable. As such, they're complicit.."
Mon, 2010-06-28 01:06
#32
Kislev25
Palestinians need a solution. They need medical care, food, etc. and not just media stunts and a few ships with supplies (whose organizers, I am sure, knew what was going to happen and allowed the whole thinhg to go ahead). It's easy to say you care for these people, from the comfort of your cottage or cozy Toronto condo... How about do something for them directly? Israel won't mind land-based border inspected humanitarian aid and people, volunteers who genuinely want to help. Better than dealing with dreams, how about dealing with the reality? Palestinians realistically have two choices: acept Israel, or dissapear slowly but surely. Remember, the guy with the big gun is always right when he's pointing it at you, that's how it works in the real world. It's a pitty Palestinian leaders choose to keep their people in misery for the faint hope that one day Israel will fall, I am sorry for them, no human being should live like that...
Mon, 2010-06-28 11:46
#33
The Palestinian leaders are responsible for the occupation? I see, now it all makes sense.
Mon, 2010-06-28 13:55
#34
Palestinians need a solution. They need medical care, food, etc. and not just media stunts and a few ships with supplies (whose organizers, I am sure, knew what was going to happen and allowed the whole thinhg to go ahead). It's easy to say you care for these people, from the comfort of your cottage or cozy Toronto condo... How about do something for them directly? Israel won't mind land-based border inspected humanitarian aid and people, volunteers who genuinely want to help. Better than dealing with dreams, how about dealing with the reality? Palestinians realistically have two choices: acept Israel, or dissapear slowly but surely. Remember, the guy with the big gun is always right when he's pointing it at you, that's how it works in the real world. It's a pitty Palestinian leaders choose to keep their people in misery for the faint hope that one day Israel will fall, I am sorry for them, no human being should live like that...
I expect the people here do more than most to aid the Palestinians.
You've got some important points mixed up. Israel will certainly NOT allow humanitarian aid or volunteers to pass through borders they have locked down since Hamas came to power. It will seize the aid, capture or kill the volunteers and steal their money and possessions.
You also seem to think Israel brutalizes the Palestinians because they won't recognize the Israeli state. Israel brutalizes the Palestinians as a byproduct of driving them from their land and settling on it. Why should they give a shit if Palestinians recognize their little colony? They have all the guns.
You got some learnin' to do.
Mon, 2010-06-28 17:27
#35
Frustrated Mess
You know how the Zionists say that since Hamas was elected they have had nobody to negotiate with? They used to say that about the PLO as well. I just came across a quotation (in Chomsky's Middle East Illusions) by Dave Ben-Gurion from the 1930s in which he claimed the Zionists has no-one to negotiate with.
It is the perfect response from an exclusionist settler state. "A land without people for a people without land".
If there is no Palestinian people, there is, ergo, no one with whom to negotiate.
Mon, 2010-06-28 19:55
#36
You know how the Zionists say that since Hamas was elected they have had nobody to negotiate with? They used to say that about the PLO as well. I just came across a quotation (in Chomsky's Middle East Illusions) by Dave Ben-Gurion from the 1930s in which he claimed the Zionists had no-one to negotiate with.
I don't think Zionism has room for negotiation.
[edited to fix a boo-boo that I didn't see until it was copied...Why can't the font be bigger when we write? Old blind guys like me have enough trouble reading off the computer screen as it is.]
Tue, 2010-06-29 11:40
#37
Israel's foreign minister said Tuesday he sees "no chance" a Palestinian state would be established by 2012 - a message that threatened to cloud the latest visit by Washington's Mideast envoy.
The comments by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman drew swift Palestinian condemnations and could put Israel at odds with the international community, which has set a 2012 target for brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
Tue, 2010-06-29 11:55
#38
This is hardly a novel development. Years ago, Bibi Netanyahu said he would not condone the creation of a "terrorist"state on Israel's nebulous borders.
Wed, 2010-06-30 17:14
#39
Frustrated Mess
The lobby faces yet another challenge: defending an apartheid state in the liberal West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa—and that day is not far off—support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish significantly. The main reason is that apartheid is a despicable political system that is fundamentally at odds with basic American values as well as core Jewish values. For sure there will be some Jews who will defend Israel no matter what kind of political system it has. But their numbers will shrink over time, in large part because survey data shows that younger American Jews feel less attachment to Israel than their elders, which makes them less inclined to defend Israel blindly.
The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish community to defend such a reprehensible political order.
Thu, 2010-07-01 14:05
#40
Kislev25
I see a lot of people here, blinded by anger and persistent in debating lack of legitimity when it comes to Israel's existence.
Who was here first? The chicken or the egg? As I said before, in one of my previous posts, these types of assertions are meaningless, for a variety of reasons, chief being most nations across the world have in one form or another taken or lost land at one point in their history. Just because some of you, or most of you, hate the existence of Israel with a passion, that doesn't mean that Israel will go anywhere, like the Mediteranean. Nation of settlers? Yes, of course! Settlers whose families have originated in what is now Israel, displaced much like the Natives in North America, and scattered throughout the World. People settle, and become part with the place where they are. When does one become a "native" of a place? How many generations must exist in one given location, for the settlers to become part of the place? According to some here, never, but only when it comes to Jews. If you think you don't belong in North America, wherever you happen to be, maybe it's time to renounce your present citizenship, and move to the place of your origin, Europe, or wherever that might be. Jews have historical/archeological, oral traditions, and genetical links to what is now Israel. Palestinians have them too. Both belong there, unfortunately, they cannot seem to stand eachother. A two state solution is probably the only thing that would work. For that, because Israel has the upper hand, Palestinians will have to understand that armed victory is not possible. For every act against Israel or Israelis, 10 retaliatory ones will follow. The Palestinians have lost, resistance is futile. The more they fight, the more they will loose. Time for a Ghandi approach.
Thu, 2010-07-01 23:31
#41
Thank you for your insight, Mr. Sharon.
Now, about that Mahatma Gandhi approach you mentioned; have you heard of Rachel Corrie?
Fri, 2010-07-02 02:19
#42
Kislev25
@ al-Qa'bong:
Listen, will all due respect, and I mean that, I am simply stating the obvious.
There's blame on both sides, and the Palestinians have been mercilessly played as pawns by their own Arab brothers, just to fuel the conflict and wipe Israel off the map. The Arab league doesn't want a Palestine, thriving and independent, they simply want a nation they can control and no Jews around. Their involvement has only hurt the Palestinian cause and the fulfillment of their dream, to have a country of their own. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Rachel Corrie. Of course I know of her and the tragic incident that led to her untimely death, nevertheless, her approach was a single-handed Ghandi approach, and that, doesn't work. You need more than just a few people to make an impact, to be visible and to make a difference. Besides, it will only work once Palestinians accept two things: that Israel will exist side-by-side with them and the fact that Israel will never accept an en masse return of people or families with past connections to what is now Israel. There will be no real negotiation until these points of dispute are settled. I am simply a pragmatic observer, and I can easlily put blame on one party or the other, but the blame is somewhat shared betwen the whole damn world and our penchant for mingling in people's business, especially if we stand to benefit from it. You should also realize that there is just as much opposition to the way Palestinians are treated inside Israel as it it outside of it. There are many people there who see the tragedy of the Palestinians and truly wish for this to come to an end. Simply blaming all Israelis and wishing their demise will only make the doves become hawks, slowly but surely.
Human beings are capable of wonderful things. We create poetry, music and literature, we study the misteries of the Universe. Throughout history, we have been doing all that, with various degrees of success. One thing, however, has remain constant: our ability to kill others and our enjoyment in doing so, it's our nature. It's hard to overcome, and not allow oneself to be blinded by fury and frustration.
As for the meaning of the "Sharon" thing, I would like to return the "compliment", but I am affraid I am too considerate to do so.
In other news: Germany has lost the war, so did Japan, and Italy, last I checked. Have you noticed how they pulled themselves out of their misery and near total destruction? They have come to terms to their losses and defeat! It must have been unpleasant, but it was the cold reality of things, the way they stood.
"Und morgen wird die Sonne wieder scheinen..."
Fri, 2010-07-02 11:15
#43
As for the meaning of the "Sharon" thing, I would like to return the "compliment", but I am affraid I am too considerate to do so.
Yes, I appear to have posted in haste. You wrote:
For that, because Israel has the upper hand, Palestinians will have to understand that armed victory is not possible. For every act against Israel or Israelis, 10 retaliatory ones will follow. The Palestinians have lost, resistance is futile. The more they fight, the more they will loose [sic].
which sounds eerily like this:
"the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."
which was said, not by General Sharon, but by Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon in 2002.
A defeated policy, not a defeated people
My apologies.
Fri, 2010-07-02 14:14
#44
Kislev25
Oh, the General and I agree... I must be some infiltrator, eh? I actually have common sense, look at history and draw conclusions.
Fri, 2010-07-02 16:28
#45
Frustrated Mess
The history I'm looking at to draw conclusions is the history of racist, Apartheid South Africa. The Palestinian people, as a whole, will do so also and the PA will lapse into a modern history. The world must no longer tolerate the sort of hatred and racism that is inherent in Zionism and Apartheid and I'm not sure why we're tolerating you.
Israel could have been any sort of nation it chose to be. It could long ago have made accomodation with its indigenous population and its neighbours. But rather than a nation of peace and tolerance, Israel chose to become a nasty little cancer of hatred and belligerence. History will not be kind to Israel. Nor should it be.
Also, your history is deeply flawed. Japan and Germany remained nations, They were not settled by racist Russians and New Yorkers who upon arrival were granted stolen land and political and civil rights denied to native Japanese and Russian civilians.
I really hate fucking apologists. They're steeped in ignorance longer than most tea baggers.
Fri, 2010-07-02 17:05
#46
Oh, the General and I agree... I must be some infiltrator, eh? I actually have common sense, look at history and draw conclusions.
Infiltrator? Who knows...or cares?
As for history, look up "Hattin" some day for the future of belligerent little Eurocoloniser states in Palestine.
Sun, 2010-07-04 02:32
#47
Kislev25
@ frustrated mess:
Well, it really looks like you are frustrated, and perhaps you are also a mess. It seems you tolerate only people who happen to view things the way you do. Why should you "tolerate" me? Because freedom of speech is a blessing, not a curse. Because you or anybody else for that matter, myself included, cannot be right 100% of the time. Foul language usualy speaks for itself and for the writer's inability to express himself/herself using meaningful words and proper arguments.
Germany ceased to exist on May 8th, 1945. Germany was divided, occupied, put under military rule, and its leaders and their minions, executed. Japan was no different, and the Russians did occupy the Kurile islands. Both nations were brought to their knees, and that lasted a long time, and it still does in Okinawa. Even their post-war constitutions were written by the Allies!
As for Israel, it could have never been "any sort of nation it chose to be" as you put it. It was attacked the next day it was declared a state. Stolen land? All land is stolen. Who was here first, the chicken or the egg? That's how nations were built from the begining of time, with "stolen land". You first steal a village and make it yours, and from there, on... That's the way things work, even if it's not fair. People, however, can find the ability to co-exist, provided they realize their own situation and are willing to compromise.
You are turning this into a personal attack, instead of an attack on my points of view. Rage clouds judgement and leads to bad decisions. Reconsider what you said. Apropos, maybe you should also "flag" my posts and complain a little, since you don't seem to have the ability to contain yourself! If you can bring strong arguments and can present them in a civillised manner, you might even convince me you're right, but in order to do so, you must first be respectful.
Sun, 2010-07-04 11:36
#48
Frustrated Mess
@ frustrated mess:
Well, it really looks like you are frustrated, and perhaps you are also a mess. It seems you tolerate only people who happen to view things the way you do. Why should you "tolerate" me? Because freedom of speech is a blessing, not a curse. Because you or anybody else for that matter, myself included, cannot be right 100% of the time. Foul language usualy speaks for itself and for the writer's inability to express himself/herself using meaningful words and proper arguments.
Germany ceased to exist on May 8th, 1945. Germany was divided, occupied, put under military rule, and its leaders and their minions, executed. Japan was no different, and the Russians did occupy the Kurile islands. Both nations were brought to their knees, and that lasted a long time, and it still does in Okinawa. Even their post-war constitutions were written by the Allies!
As for Israel, it could have never been "any sort of nation it chose to be" as you put it. It was attacked the next day it was declared a state. Stolen land? All land is stolen. Who was here first, the chicken or the egg? That's how nations were built from the begining of time, with "stolen land". You first steal a village and make it yours, and from there, on... That's the way things work, even if it's not fair. People, however, can find the ability to co-exist, provided they realize their own situation and are willing to compromise.
You are turning this into a personal attack, instead of an attack on my points of view. Rage clouds judgement and leads to bad decisions. Reconsider what you said. Apropos, maybe you should also "flag" my posts and complain a little, since you don't seem to have the ability to contain yourself! If you can bring strong arguments and can present them in a civillised manner, you might even convince me you're right, but in order to do so, you must first be respectful.
Oh, boy. He is making fun of my handle. Here we go again ...
Freedom of speech is a blessing and it is a right in Canada, except when the police take it away which apparently they can do anytime they feel like it, but this is a private forum. We don't have to tolerate you here anymore than I have to tolerate you in my living room. That may be too complex for you, but given time you may fogure it out.
The regime of Germany was deconstructed. Germany remained a nation. No foreigners arrived, declared the nation under a new name, dispossessed the indigenous population, forced them into camps, and then began brutalizing them and murdering them. Same is true for Japan. If you can't see the difference between post war Germany and Japan and the "creation" of Israel, it is because you're trying to justify a racist ideology through the prism of a history that just doesn't apply.
Israel is a stolen nation. It did attack the indigenous population. It did engage in ethnic cleansing. It did force the indigneous people into camps and steal from them their land, dignity, and humanity. It denies they even exist. It does brutalize them, starves them, and murders them every single day. It is a racist nation founded on violence and sustained by violence.
(ETA: Israel has also had ample opportnity to declare its borders, cease the expansion into the West Bank, recognize the right of Palestinians to a nation, abide by its obligations under the various agreements, to repeal rather than expand racist laws, and to seek accommodation with its neighbours rather than engage in a state of permanent war. Israel prefers violence as it seeks to erase the Palestinian people and establish Eretz israel.)
Are you attempting to justify the actions of Israel against the Palestinians by arguing, "well, it's happened before. They should just find a way to co-exist"?
There have been entire peoples rendered extinct through violence and genocide, does that render genocide okay under your logic? Does your logic apply to the holocaust? Is that acceptable when viewed through the prism of historic genocides? Did the Jews in Europe just fail to find a way to co-exist?
I will not respectful to anyone holding such obscene, diseased opinions that justify dispossession, murder, and genocide.
Sun, 2010-07-04 14:24
#49
Kislev25
Dear Frustrated mess:
I actually value your opinion. I even encourage it. If it wasn't for people like you to disagree, there would be no progress in society. I admit, I was a bit too harsh with certain words, but only as a reaction to the "Fs' and the otherwise lovely tea bagging analogy. Sure you don't have to tolerate me or anyone else who diagrees with you, but it is good to do so, mainly because you might have a chance to convince others that you might be right, or moderate someone's views. Even if you don't want to respect me, I will still respect and value your position, it is the right thing to do in what I am concerned.
You are right when you say that the circumstances between DE, J and Palestine are different. At the same time, hardship is viewed differently by people, based on numerous factors. To you, one situation might seem worse than another. What really matters is how the affected people themselves feel about it. Let me get this straight: Palestinians deserve and have the right to have a state. Palestinians are living in sub-humane conditions, abject housing, healthcare, lack of jobs, opportunities, and the list could grow to pages long. I have never said anything different in my other postings. I am simply making an observation about the current state of affairs, between Palestinians and Israelis, extrapolating from an individual against another to masses against masses. Say you have to control a person (abstract, no reasons behind it); you tell the person to comply, you get a refuse. What do you do? Escalate to force, the person clenches fists, you use the baton. The person draws a knife you draw the gun. That's the sequence, in any argument, it works the same, until one looses control and the other one gains it. Going back to Palestine-Israel, violence will continue until one party submits or gets destoyed. It's not about being right, it's about being strong: weapons, tactics, numbers. The guy with a (big) gun is always "right". What good did it do to the Natives that they were here first? They were brought to near exticntion, and to this day, they're still being mistreated by our society. Slowly but surely, most of us have learned to respect them, accept them as equals and treat them like any other human being. The whole thing over there in M-E is a mess. I'm sorry for all inocent people on both sides of the fence who have suffered, or continue to. That's my point. If you want me to shut up, since I am clearly being in disagreement to some if not most people here, I will do so (the "numbers" part from "weapons, tactics, numbers" thing). I speak my mind, I don't expect you to do otherwise, but respect is a good thing and "Fs" are not the best tactics when trying to make your point across.
Sun, 2010-07-04 16:00
#50
remind
From my read of what was said FM, you are absolutely correct with your observation that Kislev was stating "might = right".
As my response to said person was going to be; "so you are stating might = right as the rule of law then".
Then you state dit before I could, so I will just add the extension what does that kind of belief system of might - right that Kislev holds, mean?
It can only mean then that he/she, and all of those who hold this sentiment, also must believe then what happened in the Holocausrt was correct, as afterall, might=right.
otherwise it would be outright hypocrisy an supremist thinking that only Zionists and Christian whites get do the might=right
Sun, 2010-07-04 16:31
#51
Frustrated Mess
I tell you what, Kilslev25, I have grown tired of those who tell me that I must take a balanced approach which usually translates into that I must see the dispossession of the Palestinians as legitimate in the eyes of Israelis. I don't think that is true. If I got you wrong, I apologize.
There are some things we just know instinctively to be true. If we witness a mother drowning her child, we are unconcerned, at the time, with whether she has a legitimate reason, in her mind, for drowning her child. We just stop it. If we witness an elderly person being bullied, we don't ask if the bullies have a legitimate cause to bully the elderly person. We intervene.
I am familiar with the history of the European Jew. I am aware of the persecutions, the pogroms, the ostracizing, the open hostility and racism, the Spanish inquisition and the holocaust. I am thankful my ancestors' hands are blood free if only because they were too busy being persecuted themselves. And I am sympathetic to the concept of a Jewish homeland.
But it is wrong, instinctively wrong, for Palestinians to be made to pay for the sins of Europeans. There is no rationalization or intellectualizing or excuses for atrocities committed against Palestinians by those who call themselves Zionists. If a Jewish state can only be erected on the blood of another people, is it still a Jewish state? Doesn't the blood fed roots undermine the state's legitimacy far more powerfully than anything I can say or do as an individual?
You argue that might makes right. I argue you are wrong. If might makes right then every single petty and cruel tyrant who has ever lived and conquered territory was absolutely right until someone else was righter by force of nothing other than might; is that your argument? That the thug pounding your child in the school yard is right until the teacher separates the two?
Are you arguing the residential schools to which FN people were subjected was right based on the might of an authoritarian institution?
For you the only morality is that of the deadliest weapon?
Fuck.
I hope that's not true.